They'd do better by putting Carra in charge.
Jurgen Klopp Sack Watch
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
That "shit" Bayern reached the CL finals one of the years he won the league with Dortmund and saying that their CL 2013 season was a 'decent' tilt is simply a dumb attempt of downplaying that achievement.
I wouldn't put him in the absolute top manager tier right now but the revisionism regarding his Mainz and BVB stint is a bit of a joke in here. (Not that I'm complaining about the thread itself, laughin at Liverpool and his antics is great but there's no need to make up stuff.)
Last edited:
This. I remember people were horrified that we were bottom of distance covered or some other nonsense stat but José knows it's 3 points for a win, be that 1-0 or 10-0. José when we're protecting a lead will often drop us 10 yards deeper, Fellaini might come on and drop in front of the back 4 to solidify us. It didn't worry me at all seeing that stat as the players are doing what they're told to do, and the season is a marathon not a sprint, keeping something in the tank is crucial when you can.
The difference with Klopp is he expects his team to keep chasing more goals, remember that Bournemouth away game Liverpool were 3-1 up and kept playing wide open football, resulting in a 4-3 loss.
Or how great Liverpool's defence is.
It sounded like Hodgson was getting away with it in that post.
I do agree that we have a problem with overrating our managers before a ball's been kicked.
@Klopper76
Fair play you're probably one of, if not the most sensible LFC poster on here. Yet you're always the first one to show your face and take the flak, whilst some of the jokers go into hiding.
Fair play you're probably one of, if not the most sensible LFC poster on here. Yet you're always the first one to show your face and take the flak, whilst some of the jokers go into hiding.
Yeah, his spell with Dortmund was still fantastic. Klopp's got major flaws as a manager and is in an awful spell right now but writing him off on the basis of what has essentially been a couple of months would be absurd - it'd be like writing off Mourinho on the basis of his time at Chelsea last season, which no one would really tend to do in an overly serious manner.
one team had 2 weeks rest and getting sunburn, the other has been playing a tough schedule in Europe. Am I doing this right?
can he play left back?They are all rounding up on Peter Moore.
Why? You've got Alberto Moreno...
gonna sign the players with the most potential on FIFA now class
I think that's the way forward since our recruitment team was setting the bar at a max potential of 80
Your PR department is a disgrace. The new chief could be Boaty McBoatface for all we care right now
What's his background then? Another spreadsheet guru who's knowledge of football can be written on a circumsized gnat's foreskin?
OK, you got it. Apologies.
Giggsy's looking for his first job. Gi' it Giggsy.
I can handle a bit of banter at Liverpool's expense. We all dish it out to each other when our teams lose.
Was he though? I'm not arguing that he was the right appointment to reignite the side to charge for the title and the top 4, but I think he was very unfortunate in regards to when he was hired. There was still huge outcry about Benitez going, and Hodgson was expected to pick up the pieces on a shoestring budget with no real backing from the board, the players or the support right from the word go. You can't ask someone to stop a boulder from rolling down a hill and push it back to the top with no help then call them a failure when it turns out they can't do it. Dalglish was given a ton of cash after Hodgson was given the boot and didn't do much better, but he's King Kenny so it was largely ignored.
Liverpool won the thing and finished 5th, and Chelsea won it finishing 6th. Wigan won an FA Cup and got relegated. Relatively poor sides go on cup runs. United weren't much craic in 2003/04 but were it not for a bit of dodgy refereeing could have won a Champions League. Bayern were poor by their standards during those seasons, finishing 3rd in one of them.
I don't get this praise of him losing a CL final. It doesn't matter what you did to get there if you didn't win it. No one gives a toss that United got to back-to-back finals because they lost the second one. Likewise, no one gives a toss that they got to another a couple of years later because they lost that too.
Klopp did a decent job at Mainz, and did well to capitalise on Bayern's momentary decline to put Dortmund back on the map. That doesn't mean we can't look at it in retrospect and see it in the context that it happened.
It's not just been a bad couple of months though, has it?
His last season at Dortmund was a disaster, and to sound somewhat like a broken record, they were bottom of the table at the mid-point of the season. His first season at Liverpool saw him finish lower than Rodgers ever did, even in his first season, and in his second they've been dumped out of the two cups they were in, and are sliding down the table, precisely at the time many predicted they would.
He's got one trick, and it's been found out in two countries now.
Mourinho has won league titles with Porto, Chelsea, Inter Milan and Real Madrid, as well as Champions Leagues with two of those, and has now added winning silverware with United to that list. Klopp won three domestic titles in two seasons at a time when the one dominant side in Germany was having a bit of a mare, and now hasn't won anything in 5 seasons. It's hardly a reasonable comparison.
How long does he get before his Dortmund spell is put alongside the likes of Sven Goran Eriksson's at Lazio? A good achievement, but not really signs of anything other than a manager doing well at one club?
Realistic but small chance of Everton finishing above Liverpool (and us), their gap is 5 points now.
Will be interesting to see how Koeman and Klopp approach the derby.
Will be interesting to see how Koeman and Klopp approach the derby.
We'd have to have a scouse-esque dive in form for that to happen. They're on track for it mind.
Bayern weren't great in those two seasons in the league but you can only win the league against the competition you're facing - Dortmund won the league with 75 and 81 points respectively: the latter is very strong for a 34 game season and would've, for example, toppled Bayern's total in 2014/15.
You're also ignoring the fact he managed to reach a CL final as well. Two league titles and a CL final is remarkable for someone who came into a side that had been lingering around mid-tables in the years preceding Klopp's arrival. 2014/15 was poor but they had a mild recovery and managed an alright 7th placed finish - it doesn't undo Klopp's good work at all.
There's an argument he was a one-club success story who's been found out to an extent, but any attempt to undermine his achievements at Dortmund is absolute nonsense, frankly.
But Sven won the Uefa cup with Goteborg and ws really good at Benfica aswell - twice runners up EC and Uefa cup
@Alex99 our football was rubbish under Hodgson as were results. He did the wrong things, said the wrong things and was generally a disaster.
Dalglish won a trophy that Hodgson was eliminated in during a home tie against Northampton. Rodgers took us to second and closer than we've ever been to a title, and Klopp at least has us in the top four conversation (for now).
I know he didn't get much backing in the 2010 summer window, but let's say he was given Carroll and Suarez plus the £100 million Dalglish spent. Do you think he would have done any better? Look at how Hodgson did with England. Look at his CV. He's a rubbish manager.
Dalglish won a trophy that Hodgson was eliminated in during a home tie against Northampton. Rodgers took us to second and closer than we've ever been to a title, and Klopp at least has us in the top four conversation (for now).
I know he didn't get much backing in the 2010 summer window, but let's say he was given Carroll and Suarez plus the £100 million Dalglish spent. Do you think he would have done any better? Look at how Hodgson did with England. Look at his CV. He's a rubbish manager.
Sven>Klopp?
Was expecting him to mention the offside goal again post match
Hodgson inherited a team in freefall (2nd to 7th) under the previous manager and received sod all money to rectify things. I'm not Hodgson's biggest fan but I think Liverpool were a bit hasty sacking him at the time. He wouldn't have worked wonders but I think he would have stabilised.
While I think Rodgers is perhaps viewed in a harsher light and Klopp could still potentially be a success, Dalglish's second spell for you was utter crap - in spite of his League Cup win he managed to finish 8th despite the absurd amounts of money which you spent. He managed to go a spell where you only won two out of thirteen league games (and at a more isolated look one in two), losing six out of seven at one point in that spell. He was every bit as bad as Hodgson, if not worse.
Hodgson was shit. The only decent thing they've done (outside of signing Suarez) is sacking him. Him and Moyes are the managerial equivalent of a disease. Totally suck any kind of hope and morale out of any fan base - experienced it first hand with England. Quicker you get rid the better off you are.
THIS
We just won a cup that we didn't deserve to win the final of. When you get there, just win. That's all you aim to do. Play as bad as you like, but win.
If a manager routinely loses one off finals I'm not going to give him credit for getting there. There is a single-day dynamic in winning a cup. Yes you have to get there but once you're there all bets are off. The manager has to prepare his side to perform to the best of their ability for 90/120 minutes. Klopp has failed at that on so many occasions.
I still really rate him as a manager but nobody can claim that getting to finals and losing is a good trait. It's not a positive. At all.
I think Dalglish struggled, but winning a trophy puts him in a far better light than Hodgson. We were on course for a bottom half finish in 10/11 until Dalglish steadied the ship. They were both sacked anyway but I find it hard to say anything positive about Hodgson's time in charge.
You can have a good cup run but generally it is an indication that you're a good team, which Bayern were in 2012, beating a strong Mourinho Madrid side in the semis and reaching 73 points in the league; that amount would've been enough to win the title in 3 of the previous 5 years, so no they weren't shit and Klopp defending the championship as well as spanking Bayern in the cup final was a great achievement.
Saying that only winning the CL deserves praise is pretty idiotic as that means you're completely incapable of assessing relative success. By that logic a club like Southampton shouldn't get praise for their last decade because ultimately they didn't win anything.
Obviously winning it all is the greatest achievement but reaching the finals is a pretty good job, especially if your squad is inferior to so many other teams in the competition.
Yes, looking at the context is important, however that doesn't mean to nitpick the factors you like (aka "Bayern were shit thats why he won two league titles") and ignoring the others (like the fact that Dortmund were a midtable team at the time he took over, squad quality as well as financially wise, it's not like he took over the second best German club and just had to get ahead of Bayern).
Since I can't be arsed to have such a discussion I'm out.
Bang on the money. Hodgson is dire, Liverpool had to sack him.
It's official then, Sven > Klopp.
I was thinking more what he did after in all honesty. Lazio being one of the perennial outsiders in Italy were a decent enough comparison to Dortmund when Klopp took over. I did toy with comparing him to Villas-Boas at Porto, but they're pretty much favourites anyway so I wasn't sure it was particularly fair.
Points totals between seasons mean dick. Where you finish and how far off you were from the position(s) above you in that season are all that matters. Everton got a record points total in 2013/14 but still didn't finish in the top 4. It's no good saying "well if we'd got that many the season before we'd have won it" because that's not how it works. Dortmund couldn't touch Bayern after their last title and it's as simple as that.
Maybe we have a fundamental disagreement on cup runs, but I don't count reaching finals as an achievement. You either win the thing, or you don't. Reaching a final when admitting that he'd sacked off the league to get there, only to lose it, isn't good. No one cares, and no one ever will.
History doesn't remember losing finalists or league runners up, and when you're discussing the success of a manager's time at a club, pointing to failure doesn't really do your argument much good. Bayern slid, Klopp capitalised and did well domestically for a couple of seasons, Bayern recovered and dominated from then onwards, whilst Klopp slid down the table. He should be given praise for taking the chance whilst it was there, but my point is and will remain that he's a manager that's enjoyed success for just two seasons, at one club, going on five years ago now.
He took Fulham to a Europa League final and was a very experienced manager brought in whilst you were in free-fall. I think given some proper backing he'd have done no worse than Dalglish, and probably could have done better. We'll never know though.
Your current manager has just been dumped out of the FA Cup by Wolves so I'm not sure why we're bringing up cup exits to lower league opposition as a stick to beat someone with.
Why should Southampton be praised? We don't praise Stoke, or Everton, or West Brom. Football is about winning things, whether it's the Champions League or the FA Vase. Success is relative, but when Leicester are winning league titles and Wigan are winning FA Cups, the excuse of the top teams being in the way doesn't really stand for other Premier League clubs. Southampton were the better side on Sunday, but lost. People aren't going to look back in 5 years time and say Man United won the 2017 League Cup but Southampton were the better team and deserve praise for that. They're going to say Man United won the 2017 League Cup.
Generally, yes. Bayern weren't a bad side by any means, but they weren't at the Bayern Munich levels we'd seen previously and have seen since. That said, I'm not sure what Bayern's CL run has to do with their league form, which clearly wasn't up to standard. Dortmund had one good CL season though, so I'm not really sure what sort of general trend we can refer to with them other than reaching the final being a decent tilt at the trophy in one season. Leicester aren't one of Europe's top 16 clubs because they're in the last 16 of the Champions League this season, nor will they be regarded as such when people look back on this season and the last.
I've already discussed some of the other factors. A number of top players emerged in his side and promptly left without being adequately replaced. You can't accuse me of nitpicking arguments when you're arguing for Bayern not being 'poor' during the two Dortmund title wins because of a cup run, whilst simultaneously saying Dortmund were nowhere before Klopp, conveniently ignoring that they won the German Cup the season before he joined.
He did well there and should be praised accordingly. What he shouldn't be praised for is losing a fecking cup final, or as it stands now, quite a few consecutively. It could have easily been Leverkusen that stepped up, but Klopp and his team had rebuilt Dortmund and they capitalised on the situation they found themselves in. However, they've not dropped off a cliff since he left, and neither have Mainz. In fact, they're both better off than they were after his final season at each of them respectively.
He did join Dortmund when they were a mid-table club, and funnily enough, that's precisely where he left them when he jumped ship. Similarly, he took over Mainz when they were a 2. Bundesliga side, and that's also precisely where he left them when he walked.
Last edited:
That can't be the real Kaz Hirai
And the actual points total in an individual season can often end up meaning feck all too: we won it with one of our greatest sides ever in 98/99 with a fairly average 79 points, and managed to get into the 80s with much worse teams than that. I see what you're saying about Bayern failing during those years but it's ultimately a weak criticism: Dortmund won the league on both occasions with fairly respectable points totals.
When you judge a manager, you're judging them by the expected barometers of success. History may not remember runners-up but when you're casting judgment over a manager's ability it's absolutely important to take into account runners-up spots they've managed if such a position is a high achievement for them. Klopp came into a side that was ailing in mid-table; to take them to a CL final is a fantastic achievement from his perspective. If you're going by the measure of "winning counts and nothing else," then surely you're discounting the achievements of any manager who has gotten to a final or come close to winning a league against all expectations and unfortunately failed? If, for example, Raneiri had remained at Leicester this season and had gotten them to the CL final somehow, would you be writing off such an achievement because he failed to win it? Because doing so would be an incredibly flawed way of assessing a manager; the expectations they're expected to meet are extremely relevant and ignoring them is just changing the argument to suit a different narrative.
He's a big Liverpool fan.
Some good points here, particularly on the points total from one season being good enough to do x, y and z another season being neither here nor there. Actually as Cheesy has just said you can go further and say points totals without good placement in the league are pretty worthless too.
However not to be churlish but:
However not to be churlish but:
then:
doesn't add up. Though I can see taking Fulham to a final is a bit of an eyepopper, having lost it has Hodgson not failed in the same way Klopp did last year? I think trying to make a case for Hodgson possibly being a success there if he had more time is a bridge too far for anyone. Like Moyes when he was with us, opposition fans loved his tenure and were disappointed when it came to an end.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the points totals. It doesn't matter if you finish on 50 or 100 points, what matters is where you finish and how far off the other teams you were. Winning the league on 72 points is better than finishing 3rd on 81 in a different season. Bayern weren't great and Dortmund capitalised. I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about that statement. It doesn't matter how many points Dortmund had in those seasons, just that they won.
Weird thing to bring up considering it hasn't and won't happen, but yeah, if Ranieri lost the CL final with Leicester whilst their league form remained as it has been before tonight then I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to downplay the apparent achievement of losing a cup final, CL or not, when he'd have taken the league champions to relegation whilst doing so. Martinez's FA Cup with Wigan is tainted by their league relegation and he actually won the thing.
As for this "mid-table club in a CL final" narrative, that's not what happened. Yeah, they'd come from mid-table a few seasons prior, but at the time they were the reigning Bundesliga champions having won it in two consecutive seasons. This wasn't Everton stealing 4th in 2005. It's not really unreasonable to suggest that they should have been considered contenders by that point.
I only brought up Hodgson's cup run with Fulham in response to Klopper saying he had nothing on his CV. I wouldn't give a toss, ordinarily, but that's precisely the sort of thing they'd have looked at when hiring him. My main point was that he was a very experienced manager who'd done a decent enough job with a Premier League club, and whilst I don't believe he'd have been pushing for titles or even really threatening top 4, I think he'd have at least equalled Dalglish's 8th place if he'd been given some money to spend. Calling him out as absolutely the worst manager just smacks me as being a bit harsh given he was never given a chance.
Moyes spent near £70 million to take United from champions to 7th. Hodgson was tasked with rebuilding and rejuvenating a free-falling Liverpool with less than £25 million in a summer where they sold Mascherano and ended up making a net profit off transfers by the end of the window, then sacked just a few months later.
The recent arc of Liverpool fans vis-à-vis their relationship with Liverpool managers is very similar to the arc of the rise and demise of a ****. A group of sad, lost, vulnerable people deify an ordinary man because he occasionally says something clever and shows them affection. They put all their faith in him in the hope that he'll fix everything and make their world whole again by guiding them to nirvana (the league). Soon, a few members start to notice little holes in their venerable leaders' personality and actions ("I asked him why he shot Tina. He simply said, 'that offside goal....' and walked away", said one confused member), but they're shouted down by the fiercely protective majority who believe Tina was a mole sent by Alex Ferguson to destroy them from within. And anyway, he was just showing passion.
However, things continue to get worse and soon they all come to the realization that they've been duped. They move on with great difficulty, but they move on. Except they (Liverpool fans), unlike your ordinary **** member, "move on" to the next **** leader and repeat the same process all over again.
To put it simply, it's desperation. They're desperate for a savior, a man who will bring back the glory days. They're desperate for one simple answer that will fix everything and that answer is always the manager. They've done this with Rafa, they've done it with Rodgers (who genuinely comes off like a failed **** leader) and they're doing it with Klopp. And when you look at it through a Liverpool lens (a lens smudged by the pain of 20 plus years of failure), it's completely understandable behaviour that they would deify Klopp, because if he can't save them, who can?
In the distance, Phil Collins' "In The Air Tonight" begins to play.
BAH GAWD!!! IT COULDN'T BE, could it?? THAT'S Steven Gerrard's music!!!
Well, yes, that's largely my point, because you were downplaying their achievements by highlighting the weaknesses of Bayern during those Bundesliga seasons.
I wasn't talking about Raneiri's hypothetical achievements in relation to the league, just on the exclusive basis of whether it would be a fantastic achievement had he gotten them to a CL final - and that's undoubtedly the case. Sometimes finals can be decided by incredibly slim margins that have nothing to do with a manager...say, a shite decision such a wrongly awarded penalty.
And the only reason Dortmund should've been considered as anything remotely close to contenders in 2013 was because of...well, Klopp himself. In the same way that while Fergie had plenty of squads he should have been winning the title with anyway, one of the reasons he was so highly regarded was because he consistently built those sides and managed to maintain their quality.